@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 03/17/00 -- Vol. 18, No. 38
Chair/Librarian: Mark Leeper, 732-817-5619, mleeper@lucent.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper, 732-332-6218, eleeper@lucent.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist: Rob Mitchell, robmitchell@lucent.com
HO Chair Emeritus: John Jetzt, jetzt@lucent.com
HO Librarian Emeritus: Nick Sauer, njs@lucent.com
Back issues at http://www.geocities.com/evelynleeper
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the
second Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call
201-447-3652 for details. The Denver Area Science Fiction
Association meets 7:30 PM on the third Saturday of every month at
Southwest State Bank, 1380 S. Federal Blvd.
===================================================================
1. Now a message from Loosent Management.
After a great deal of thought and consideration we have decided
that in this year's national election we and Loosent are going to
vote 100% Republican. We find that the Republican Party policy and
emphasis on traditional values most closely represents the
interests of Loosent. Of course there is no way to make this
binding, but in areas that vote Democratic we will be shutting
Loosent facilities down.
Thank you for your cooperation. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. We live in an age of weird ideas. I think that part of the
problem is people who get all excited by THE X-FILES and really
start to believe that there are conspiracies to keep some higher
truth back from the public. Of course, nobody says there are not
government conspiracies to keep information from the public. They
tend to be only the expected things. Technically speaking, if the
password to the NORAD computer is kept secret, you have a
government conspiracy to keep information from the American public.
The government kept the Manhattan Project secret. But the X-FILES
has goosed up people's paranoia that the government knows about
alien invasions and strange creatures, etc., etc. And now we are
getting additional secret knowledge that supposedly is being
covered up. What about the face on Mars? What about the alien
autopsy? What about alien abductions? Cattle mutilations? Crop
circles? Is Elvis alive?
I would like propose a little tool for what you should choose to
believe. Well, even believe is a strong term. Let us say to tell
you what to act as if it were true. This is what I use myself and
I find it to be very practical. There will probably be some people
who resist it as heresy, but I think that it works.
Step 1: Choose a set of beliefs that make you what you are, and do
not apply the following method. You are best off making this set
as small as possible. If you believe in God and that is an
important part of your constitution, don't play with it. Accept it
as part of yourself. You are not going to be convinced otherwise
and you are just going to get angry with me for trying to shake you
from your religious beliefs. If, however, it is an important part
of what makes you what you are to believe that aliens from the
Planet Xdaafg are controlling the United States Government, I'd get
that looked at if I were you.
Step 2: Where you have an statement S and its negation N, both of
which are unproved, but S is potentially provable and N is not, act
as if N is true.
--Scuse me, how's that again?
Well, let's take an example. Let S be "The government has a
captured flying saucer." Then N is "The government does not have a
captured flying saucer." Can you potentially prove that the
government has a flying saucer? Sure you could. You could find it
in a hangar someplace and take photographs. Now I know somebody is
going to say that photographs do not prove anything any more. But
here we are talking about making a convincing argument, not
mathematical proof. You could bring with you enough unimpeachable
witnesses (I think Clinton proved he was unimpeachable) to see it.
Can you actually prove the government does not have a captured
flying saucer, even potentially? Never. So for ordinary citizens
it is best to look at life as if there is no flying saucer that the
Air Force has squirreled away.
You cannot be infallibly right this way. Someone may find the
saucer. But you see, that is part of the point. If S was
provable, likely it already would have been. And you can (and
should) always keep an open mind so you can switch sides if someone
does prove it. If you don't believe in the unprovable N, by
definition nothing can ever come along to prove it to you.
Another way to look at this is that if a statement is falsifiable
but not falsified, and its negation is not falsifiable, act as if
you believe it rather than its negation. I will leave the proof
that that is an equivalent statement as an exercise for the reader.
But let's try it out. "The super-civilization of Atlantis is pure
myth." Falsifiable? Yes. We could find a sunken island with
advanced technical equipment that we can prove is ancient. But
that hasn't happened yet. But can we falsify the negation? The
negation is that there was truth to the existence of Atlantis. Can
you show that is wrong? Probably not. So at least for the time
being it is best to believe Atlantis is a myth. Few of us will
ever be led astray by being too skeptical of the existence of
Atlantis.
There will be those who try to apply the same logic to the
Holocaust out of what I consider to be sheer human perversity. But
I think that the statement that the Holocaust is a myth is not just
falsifiable but has been falsified. Additionally the statement
that the Holocaust was real is falsifiable.
So what does all this amount to? Well it is a little more than
advice to be a skeptic. That would say that you should be
skeptical about the Holocaust also. It is a formalized way to be a
skeptic. It is the right way to be a skeptic. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. MISSION TO MARS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Two missions to Mars highlight Brian
De Palma's first foray into science fiction.
The film borrows heavily from older space
exploration films but still manages to stroke
our sense of wonder with strange structures
which have stranger behaviors. The film
falters a little in the final reel, but
generally is entertaining and even exciting.
Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4) HEAVY
SPOILERS discussing the ideas follow the main
review.
In 1950 ROCKETSHIP XM went to Mars and brought back to Earth a
secret that might determine the future of the human race. It was
the first major film of the 1950s science fiction cycle.
ROCKETSHIP XM was early in a sub-genre of space exploration that
included FRAU IM MOND, DESTINATION MOON, PROJECT MOONBASE, THE
CONQUEST OF SPACE, 12 TO THE MOON, COUNTDOWN, 2001: A SPACE
ODYSSEY, and possibly CONTACT. These are films that have piqued
our sense of wonder. Sadly, we have not seen many of them of late.
Science fiction films have gone in other directions with monster
films, psychotic killers in space, martial arts, and chases. While
MISSION TO MARS makes a few false moves in the final reel, in
particular some errors in science, it is a great ride and it brings
back the sense of wonder of some of the 1950s space explorations
films, back when the sky and the future were limitless.
This film begins in the year 2020 with the first mission to Mars.
Four people are sent to the planet Mars. The expedition seems to
be going well until an unusual formation is noted on a nearby hill.
Going to investigate, things go mysteriously and spectacularly
wrong. Now there is at most one Mars astronaut alive, Luke Graham
(played by Don Cheadle). A second mission is sent to rescue Luke
and continue the mission. On this expedition are Jim McConnell
(Gary Sinise) and Woody Blake (Tim Robbins wearing the most
uncomfortable-looking piece of jewelry I have seen in a long time).
Along the way they face some of the problems and dangers we have
seen dramatized previously in films, but have not seen since visual
effects in films have become so agile. Some of the effects work,
particularly motorized vehicles on Mars, do not look well rendered,
but elsewhere some of the effects work is quite good. The
destruction of the first mission is deliciously eerie. Another
novel scene involves an explosion that could only happen in the
conditions of space and the special effects to portray the scene
are fascinating. What we get is a film with a sort of nostalgic
feel but which also has a timely sense as consideration is given to
staging a manned mission to Mars.
This is Brian De Palma's first science fiction film and he has a
healthy respect for the older films. This is a science fiction
film without guns and chases. (It is a pity it did not leave out
the product placements also.) Gary Sinise is a good actor, but his
performance seems a little stilted here. He is playing a man who
keeps his emotions bottled up, as does Robbins so we have to infer
emotions from the situations. Sinise deserves good roles, but we
see little of his talent here. Robbins we do not expect an
evocative performance; we expect his style of under-acting. Also
present are Don Cheadle and Jerry O'Connell of "Sliders," and both
are fine. There is a fair-sized role that goes to a mysteriously
uncredited Armin Mueller-Stahl.
The critics are not being very kind to MISSION TO MARS, but I
strongly suspect there will be a contingent of older science
fiction fans who were brought up on 1950s space exploration films
and who will enjoy this film as much as I did. I rate it a 7 on
the 1 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...
I do not know if sending married couples into space has been
considered. But it would be a questionable NASA policy for
precisely the reasons that this film makes clear.
Some readers will know why I was a little disappointed that when
they found Luke he did not ask his rescuers for a piece of cheese.
Evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould would have a fit if he saw
this film. The implication of what is learned in the final reel is
that the human stands at the top of the evolutionary tree and that
all evolution is aimed at creating a humanoid creature with our DNA
and even our facial expressions. That is not the way it works. We
were formed by our environment in a random walk of adapting to the
natural world. Plant the same protozoa DNA on two different
planets with different conditions and the resulting species would
rapidly diverge. It is highly unlikely that the most intelligent
species on each of two planets would so resemble each other. And
even if there was a guiding force they would not end up so
different looking. The error in this film is closely related to
that in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, but the probabilities are far lower
here.
A much better thought out film on Martian survival strategies is
Nigel Kneale's QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (FIVE MILLION YEARS TO
EARTH), which I have long considered the best science fiction film
I have ever seen. Previously hard to find, it currently seems to
run monthly on the American Movie Classics cable channel.
It seems unlikely that with two missions to Cydonia there would be
no mention of the famous Cydonia Face on Mars, and in fact they
seem unaware of it. It is like being in Roswell, New Mexico, and
not knowing about the supposed crashed flying saucer. [-mrl]
===================================================================
4. THE NINTH GATE (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Roman Polanski cryptically brings the
novel EL CLUB DUMAS by Arturo Perez-Reverte to
the screen. He adds to the story a
supernatural element, but hardly enough to make
this interesting as a horror film. The film
shows potential but little real value ever
comes out of it. Perhaps Polanski does not
know what are his most horrifying images.
Rating: 5 (0 to 10), low +1 (-4 to +4)
Take a Sherlock Holmes story and set it in the Middle Ages at a
monastery and you have IN THE NAME OF THE ROSE. Tell the story
that way, and the unfamiliar trimmings will have some interest and
you can give new life to what might otherwise be a tired plot. Far
too much of THE NINTH GATE is hard-boiled detective story in the
Sam Spade tradition, but sprinkled with trimmings from the rare
book trade. Supposedly the novel on which THE NINTH GATE is based
has almost no supernatural element and Polanski emphasized the
little that was there. But take the supernatural out of this film
and you have warmed over Dashiell Hammett. Late in this long film
the greatly amplified supernatural element becomes more important,
but its contribution is of too little interest too late.
Johnny Depp plays antiquarian book dealer Dean Corso, a wheeler-
dealer with few scruples. In marked contrast to the passion his
customers have for books, Corso treats books like stocks, buying
and selling them like pork belly futures. Corso is hired by Boris
Balkan (Frank Langella doing a Fritz Weaver impression) a well-
known collector of books on witchcraft and demonology. Balkan has
recently purchased or stolen a Necronomicon-like book, "The Nine
Gates of the Kingdom of the Shadows." Whether the book was bought
or stolen will not be determined since the previous owner, Andrew
Telfer, committed suicide once the book was out of his hands.
There are thought to be only three copies of this book: Balkan's,
one in Portugal, and one in France. But Balkan knows that even
that number is not correct. There is only one copy and the other
two are frauds. Balkan hires Corso to compare his copy with the
other two copies and determine which is the original.
Before leaving for Europe Corso pays a visit to Liana Telfer (Lena
Olin), widow of Andrew. She claims that the book belonged to her
and by rights it still does. Corso heads for Europe. He quickly
discovers that there are people trying to kill him and get Balkan's
copy of the book. He also has acquired a sort of mysterious
guardian who protects him in time of danger. She is an attractive
blond (Emmanuelle Seigner) with a mean kick-boxing style. Corso
has no idea who she is or why she protects him.
Roman Polanski has taken a rather complex and mystical novel,
increased the emphasis on the supernatural, and changed a number of
things around. By dropping the entire Alexander Dumas subplot, for
which the book was named, he has freed up characters to be
redefined for his new plot. Some of Polanski's seem just to be
testing the medium. He has a completely gratuitous special effect
in that two twins on the screen together are played by a single
actor. The conclusion of the film is markedly different from the
book. The mysticism that suffuses the film seems completely
artificial, a long way from Polanski's best work. Part of the
problem is that he seems to have lost his way in understanding
where true horror lies. Certainly there are Polanski films that
are horrifying. But in ROSEMARY'S BABY the ceremonial Satanism
only worked because it was the late 1960s and people were open to
really weird ideas. It was the situation of Rosemary being
entrapped where the film's punch can still be felt. In this film
he builds to a horror that seems cliched and uninteresting, like a
spook in a sheet. He breezes right past the films only scene of
true horror. That was at the beginning of the film and involved a
stroke victim.
Polanski filmed THE NINTH GATE entirely in Europe. He had to
recreate New York City much as Kubrick had to in EYES WIDE SHUT,
though presumably he did it more economically. For this and other
reasons this film seems at least superficially a companion film to
Kubrick's last film. However, Kubrick brought his film to a
conclusion while Polanski ends his film just short of telling us
what it all means. Even when you find out what is happening you do
not know what is happening. After 132 minutes it seems there
should be more we know. It is the difference between serving a
feast or just tantalizing the audience with one. I rate THE NINTH
GATE 5 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +1 on the -4 to +4 scale.
[-mrl]
===================================================================
5. MY DOG SKIP (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: A well-textured true story of a boy
and his dog made with high production values is
marred by what seems like exaggerated story
telling. Willie Morris, former editor-in-chief
of HARPER'S MAGAZINE, recalls his close
relationship growing up with the title
character. It is a beautiful recreation of
1940s wartime Mississippi with a good score,
and at times the story line is moving, but Skip
is a little too intelligent to be believed.
Not the best dog story going but still one of
the better family films of the year. Rating: 6
(0 to 10), +1 (-4 to +4)
Roger Ebert talks about going into MY DOG SKIP expecting it to be
just another animal film and being won over by it. It reminded him
of his dog when he was growing up. I have to say my experience was
just the opposite. I admit I happen to like a good sentimental
animal story and particularly a dog story. Growing up I also had a
dog, Sam, whom I loved very much. And before, during, and after my
experience of growing up with Sam I thoroughly enjoyed dog films.
Not just the big famous ones like OLD YELLER, but I still get misty
over GOODBYE MY LADY and the 1959 A DOG OF FLANDERS. More recently
I enjoyed SHILOH. And it was in this vein that I went into MY DOG
SKIP actually expecting to like it, even if other people would
think me silly.
Quite to my surprise, in spite of expectation and good reviews, it
is not a good dog story. And for one very important reason. For a
dog film to work, the dog has to be believable. I consider a dog
to be a very intelligent animal, but not like Skip. Skip does
things that I cannot believe any dog would do. In one scene,
Skip's master Willie is supposed to be playing football, but
freezes up when the ball falls at his feet. Sizing up the
situation, Skip the wonder dog runs forward, picks of the football
in his teeth and jumps into Willie's arms. Also, several times in
the film Skip plays matchmaker, getting his young master together
with a cute little girl. A dog is an intelligent animal, but it is
too hard to believe he is that intelligent. Too often when we
should be drawn into the story we feel the presence of Skip's
trainer just out of camera reach.
Growing up in Yazoo, Mississippi, in 1942 is not easy for Willie
Morris (Frankie Muniz). Willis is something of a loner anyway,
picked on by the local bullies. Willie does not make friends
easily. His closest friend was his next doors neighbor, Dink
Jenkins (Luke Wilson) a local sports hero. But Luke went off to
war and Willie is lonely and virtually friendless. Willie cannot
think of a single friend his own age to invite to his birthday
party. And Willie desperately needs friends. Willie's father Jack
(Kevin Bacon) seems to have lost any human warmth he had along with
a leg in the Spanish Civil War. Willie's loving mother Ellen
(Diane Lane) sees her son's loneliness and wants to get the boy a
dog. But Jack absolutely refuses.
Of course, we know that eventually Willie will get his dog, but
what is unexpected is how having Skip changes Willie's life so
completely. Through the dog's ministrations Willie proves himself
and befriends the local bully who formerly preyed on him. Skip
also arranges to have the prettiest girl in school spread a
fondness from Skip to Willie.
The film chronicles Willie's adventures with Skip. Seeing a
newsreel about the Canine Corps, Willie becomes obsessed with
giving his best friend away to the military effort. (Somehow this
seems unlikely but possible.) In another subplot, Dink returns
from the war somewhat less a hero than he had been in local sports.
Skip will in his way also help Dink. The film frequently repeats
an anti-violence message as warfare and hunting are shown to have
as ugly a side as is possible to show in a family film.
Frankie Muniz as Willie Morris has to hold the film together as
much or more than Haley Joel Osment did in THE SIXTH SENSE. He has
an expressive face without the exaggeration that a Macaulay Culkin.
Diane Lane is a little idealized as a mother, but less so than the
dog. Kevin Bacon seems a little young for fatherly roles. William
Ross's score is sentimental and pleasant, though in one action
scene seems a little too close to John Williams's style.
Perhaps some leeway is acceptable for sentimentality, but this film
was a little too hard to believe at face value. This is an
acceptable dog story but not one of the best. I rate it 6 on the 0
to 10 scale and a +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]